Vygostky and the education of infants and toddlers:

 A conceptual framework based on the notion of inclusion of typical and atypical

children

Angeles Molina Iturrondo, Ed.D.Carmen Milagros Velez Vega, MSWUniversity of Puerto RicoR_o Piedras, Puerto Rico

In April, 1993, the University of Puerto Rico's Medical Sciences Campus began to operate a

child development center for infants and toddlers based on the notion of inclusion. The center

serves 40 boys and girls between two months and three years of age. At least twenty percent of

the children have one or multiple forms of developmental disabilities or delays. Children with

special needs are integrated in groups of children with typical development, within an

environment that is appropriate for infants and toddlers. The fundamental goal is to foster

optimal development in all participating children, regardless of their developmental disabilities

or delays, thus capitalizing on each child's developmental strengths. By strengths it should be

understood any physical, cognitive, affective or social ability that becomes an asset to the child

in the process of transcending potential limitations imposed by a particular developmental lag or

condition. Therefore, the educational intervention is predicated on the idea of the optimization of

the human potential as early as in infancy. In the case of children with atypical development, this

type of intervention is intended to prevent the further expansion of handicapping conditions. The

key factor in the achievement of the Center's goal is the quality of the social interaction as the

tool for fostering optimal development. When referring to social interaction, we are talking

about sensitive and warm human relationships established between caregivers and children, as

well as among the children. These interactions are always mediated by language and reach far

within intimacy of children's families. The nature of these interactions, characterized by their

incursions on children's and caregivers' zones of proximal development, provide ample

opportunities for the children and the caregivers to become active agents in the promotion of

their own developmental process. The idea of the active human being is indeed a Vygostkian

conception. A careful reading of Vygotsky's works (1962, 1978) points toward the proactive

nature of children and adults, whom by virtue of their activities within the social milieu,

elaborate solutions to a diverse variety of tasks and problems,that in this case are socio-cognitive

and developmental.

The concept of inclusion

Inclusion is new pedagogical concept in the United States and Puerto Rico. It emerges from

the legal right to integration of exceptional citizens in their least restrictive environment (Hehir

& Latus, 1992). Integration was established by federal law in the United States through The

Individual with Disabilities Act (IDEA, PL101-476). Nevertheless, two other important pieces of

legislation, The Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights PCI (PL101- 496) as

well as The American with Disabilities Act (ADA, PL101-336) also guaranty the social and

academic integration of exceptional citizens (Rogers,1993). In educational establishments,

integration embodies the right of exceptional children to be included with, and socially interact

with typical peers of their own age. Therefore, inclusion is much more than having the special

child in the classroom. Inclusion requires that the child be treated as a typical child except in

those areas in which special attention is required. Vygotsky anticipated the concept of inclusion

when he suggested that handicapped children needed to be educated together with typical

children in challenging social environments. Tudge (1990, p.158) has pointed out that "...just as

ontogenetic development is dependent upon the broad social and cultural conditions in society

that have developed over time, so children's microgenetic development is dependent upon

particular interactions they have with others". In the case of the present conceptual framework,

adopting the Vygotskian point of view implies educating atypical infants and toddlers together

and in challenging interaction with their typical peers.

Development in the early years

According to the Vygotskian socio-historical point of view, development is intertwined with

learning from the child's first days of life (Vygotsky, 1978, p.84). However, learning as a form

of social transaction with more competent peers and adults, is always ahead of development,

exerting an overwhelming influence on its accomplishment. Vygotsky proposed the concept of

the zone of proximal development to account for the performance difference between the actual

and the next developmental level. Even though this concept was originally concerned with

instruction and schooling (Tudge, 1990), it is also pertinent within the context of a

developmental program for infants and toddlers. If we accept Vygotsky's notion that "human

learning presupposes a specific social nature as a process by which children grow into the

intellectual life of those around them" (Vygotsky, 1978, p.88), then it is necessary to extend and

apply the zone of proximal development to the education of infants and toddlers, focusing on the

nature and quality of the interaction of children among themselves and with the caregivers.

Human development is indeed, an active process of internal transformation of structures and

functions. This process is multidirectional, dialectical, and continuous, taking place within the

context of a particular set of socio-historical dimensions, that are also dialectical and dynamic.

This process is strongly influenced by three factors: (1) the activities that human beings

generate as they interact with the social environment from birth; (2) the cultural

expectations and demands within a particular socio-historical context;(3) the biological

dimensions (Molina Iturrondo, in press). These three factors interact among themselves,

creating a complex array of reciprocal influences on the cognitive as well as socio-affective

dimensions of the human development process.

Cognition and language in the early years

Early mastery of language is perhaps the fundamental developmental accomplishment taking

place in the first years of life. Therefore, it is a key component in the conceptual framework we

have conceptualized. According to the Vygotskian point of view, the significance of early

language development probably emerges from the strong influence it exerts on the configuration

of incipient thought processes. Ontogenetically, language starts off as a social phenomena, with

a different genetic root from that of thought. Language is then internalized by the young child,

thus providing the basic structures that eventually give form to verbal language and conceptual

thought. Its our contention that the role of language in early development of infants and toddlers,

in its oral and written expression should not be underestimated.

The research literature abundantly documents the exquisite relationship that seems to exist

between frequent dialogic story reading with young children (Valdez-Menchaca & Whitehurst,

1992), and their cognitive, linguistic and metalinguistic development (Dickinson & Smith, 1994;

Phillips & McNaughton, 1990; Whitehurst, Falco, Fischel, Debarsyshe, Valdez-Menchaca &

Caulfield, 1988). Contemporary research literature also points toward the intimate relationship

and continuity that seems to exist between the development of oral and written language in the

preschool years (Kavanagh, 1991; Snow, 1983; Snow, Cancino, Ganz_lez & Shriberg, 1989).

My own research in progress, a longitudinal case study on the origins and evolution of literacy in

early childhood, has documented the powerful influence that dialogic story reading and the

creative exploration of the written language, has exerted on one five-year-old girl's cognitive and

linguistic developmental history since infancy (Molina Iturrondo, 1994). The early exploration

writing has the potential for allowing very young children to discover its symbolic function. This

process eventually evolves from a first to a second order of symbolism which requires the

exercise of sophisticated cognitive processes that only have their true meaning within the social

context where they are used. As Vygotsky (1978, 116) suggested, children's meaningful and

playful engagement in literacy writing activities should be a "natural" component of early

childhood education. Since for preschoolers, reading and writing are located in their zones of

proximal development, these activities as creative and playful explorations need to be integrated

in developmental programs for children as young as infants and toddlers.

Play and its role in early optimal development and learning.

Play is probably the activity that best defines childhood in eastern societies. As natural and

spontaneous act, it emerges during the first year of life as a sensorimotor action. Eventually,

sensorimotor play evolves into dramatic play. According to Vygotsky (1978, p.94), emerging

dramatic play is not symbolic from the start, but it allows the child to realize tendencies and

desires that cannot be gratified in any other way.

The Vygotskian point of view stresses the relationship between play, cognition and affective

dimensions of development. But play is much more in the sense that it fosters an internal

transformation in children (Vygotsky, 1978, p.101) that is fundamental in the developmental

process. The reason is that play is an activity that also belongs into the zone of proximal

development. As Vygotsky indicated, "In play, a child always behaves beyond his average age,

above his daily behavior; in play it is as though he were a bit taller than himself" (Vygotsky,

1978, p.102). Therefore, in the present conceptual framework, play becomes the best mean

through which foster optimal development in the infants and toddlers, regardless of their

developmental levels.

Final comments

The present conceptual framework, elaborated in an unpublished document (Molina Iturondo,

Alonso Amador, Velez Vega & Gonzalez, 1994), represents a deliberate effort to provide

theoretical guidance to the education of infants and toddlers in inclusion and regular programs in

Puerto Rico. Modalities of educational interventions with infants and toddlers are very recent in

Puerto Rico. Too frequently these interventions have been a theoretical, focusing only on the

child care dimension. Through this conceptual framework, we hope to bring to light and openly

discuss the urgency of adopting a socio-historical stance on early childhood education,that

promises to be fruitful for enhancing all children's optimal development.

References

Dickinson, D.K. & Smith, M.W. (1994). Long-term effects of preschool teachers' book

readings on low-income children's vocabulary and story comprehension. (1994). Reading

Research Quarterly, 29(2), 105-122.

Hehir T. & Latus,T.(1992). Special education at the century's end: Evolution, theory and

practice since 1970. Cambridge, MA: Harvard ducational Review Reprint Series.

Kavanagh, J.F. (Ed.).(1991). The language continuum. Sydney: Ashton Scholastic.

Molina Iturrondo, A. (in press).Marco conceptual para la transformaci_n de la educaci_n

preescolar en el n_cleo escolar.R_o Piedras, PR:La Organizaci_n para el Fomento del Desarrollo

del Pensamiento, Inc.

Molina Iturrondo, A. (1994). [La evoluci_n temprana de la lecto- _escritura como proceso

integrado en el desarrollo desde la infancia hasta los a_os preescolares: un estudio de caso].

Datos crudos in_ditos.

Molina Iturrondo, A., Alonso Amador, A., Velez Vega, C.M. & Gonz_lez, M.I.(1994). Marco

conceptual para un curr_culo de inclusi_n para infantes y maternales. Manuscrito in_dito,

Universidad de Puerto Rico, Recinto de Ciencias M dicas, R_o Piedras.

Phillips, G. & McNaugthon, S. (1990). The practice of storybook reading to preschool

children in mainstream New Zealand families. Reading Research Quarterly, 25(3), 1997-212.

Rogers, J. (1993, May). The inclusion revolution. Research Bulletin. Bloomington, IN: Phi

Delta Kappa, Center for Evaluation, Development and Research, 1-6.

Snow, C.E. Literacy and language: Relationship during the preschool years. Harvard

Educational Review, 53, 165-189.

Snow, C. E., Cancino H., Gonz_lez, P. & Shriberg, E. (1989). Giving formal definition: An

oral language correlate of school literacy. In D. Bloome (Ed.), Classrooms and literacy (pp.233-

249). Hillsdale, NJ:Ablex.

Tudge, J. (1990). Vygotsky, the zone of proximal development and peer collaboration:

Implications for classroom practice. In L.C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education (pp.155-172).

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Valdez-Menchaca, M.C. & Whitehurst, G.J. (1992). Accelerating language development

through picture book reading: A systematic extension to day care. Developmental Psychology,

28, 1106-114.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT press.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Whitehurst, G.L. Falco,F.L., Lonigan C.J., Fischel, B.D., Valdez- Menchaca, M.C. &

Caulfield,M. (1988). Accelerating language development through picture book reading.

Developmental Psychology, 24(4), 552-559.

Sociocultural Approaches to Learning and Development: 

A Vygotskian Framework

Vera John-Steiner and Holbrook Mahn University of New Mexico

(A paper submitted to a special issue of Educational Psychologist on theoretical approaches to

learning and their implications for the classroom)

Abstract

Socio-cultural approaches emphasize the interdependence of social and individual processes

in the co-construction of knowledge. This article uses three central tenets of a Vygotskian

framework to examine the relationship between learning and development: (a) social

sources of individual development, (b) semiotic (signs and symbols, including language)

mediation in human development, and (c) genetic (developmental) analysis. The role

played by culture and language in human development is an essential aspect of the

Vygotskian framework and provides an overarching theme for this article. The

methodological foundation of this framework is examined, particularly as it contrasts with

other perspectives on the process of internalization of social interaction in the construction of

knowledge. The article concludes by surveying socio-cultural research on and applications to

classroom learning and teaching, particularly that which examines the role of collaboration. It is

significant that this special issue of Educational Psychologist contains an article on socio-

cultural theory on the centenary of the birth of its founder, the Russian psychologist Lev

Vygotsky. In the last few decades there has been increasing interest in this theory and its

implications for research on classroom learning and teaching. There is a range of interpretations

and applications of socio-cultural approaches, reflecting the vitality of this perspective.1

Nevertheless, some common assumptions of the sociocultural community have been refined and

clarified by contemporary scholars based on Vygotsky's original writings. A number of sources

provide overviews of these approaches and reflect the varied interpretations of Vygotsky's

theory (van der Veer & Valsiner, 1991; Wertsch, 1985, 1991; Cole & Scribner, 1978; John-

Steiner & Souberman, 1978).

To examine the central concepts of sociocultural theory the methodological foundations

should be analyzed. The dialectical method Vygotsky used differentiates it from other

perspectives presented in this issue. We focus on the differences between social constructivist

and sociocultural approaches since these two perspectives are often associated, resulting in

confusion about their similarities and differences.

This article consists of three main sections: 1) a brief overview of sociocultural approaches; 2)

an examination of sociocultural methodology; and 3) an overview of sociocultural contributions

to research and applications to classroom learning and teaching. An overarching focus is the

interdependence of social and individual processes in the co-construction of knowledge. This

focus clarifies the differences between sociocultural theories based on Vygotsky's contributions

and other perspectives reviewed in this issue.

An Overview of Sociocultural Theory

Sociocultural approaches to learning and development were first systematized and

applied by L. S. Vygotsky and his collaborators in Russia in the nineteen-twenties and

thirties. They are based on the concept that human activities take place in cultural

contexts, are mediated by language and other symbol systems, and can be best understood

when investigated in their historical development. At a time when psychologists were intent

on developing simple explanations of human behavior, Vygotsky developed a rich, multifaceted

theory through which he examined a range of subjects including the psychology of art; language

and thought; and learning and development, including a focus on the education of students with

special needs. However, his work was suppressed for 20 years and did not become accessible

again until the late fifties and early sixties. Since then, sociocultural approaches have gained

increasing recognition and have been further developed by scholars in over a dozen countries.

Contemporary interpretations and reinterpretations of Vygotsky's and his collaborators' work

reflect the visibility and obscurity of this theory's sixty-year existence. The expansions and

interpretations in the last 25 years have led to diverse perspectives on sociocultural theory.

The dissemination of Vygotsky's ideas and the application of his work in diverse national

contexts have contributed to "a complex of related but heterogeneous proposals" (Rogoff,

Radziszewska, & Masiello, 1995, p. 125). Vygotsky's ideas are condensed, and at times not fully

developed as he died at a young age of tuberculosis. Much of his work remains untranslated into

English. In spite of these difficulties, his theories are increasingly influential in Western

countries. The impact of Vygotsky's ideas has grown substantially in the United States,

particularly since the publication of a selection of his writings in Mind in Society in 1978.

The power of Vygotsky's ideas lies in his explanation of the dynamic interdependence of

social and individual processes. He arrived at his views by analyzing the crisis in psychology he

saw in the two predominant schools in the field, "each of which claim[ed] to possess an

explanatory system adequate to become the basis of general psychology" (Kozulin, 1990, p. 87).

In contrast to those approaches which focused on internal or subjective experience and

behaviorist approaches which focused on the external, Vygotsky conceptualized development as

the transformation of socially shared activities into internalized processes. In this way he

rejected the Cartesian dichotomy between the internal and the external.

The nature of the interdependence between individual and social processes in the construction

of knowledge can be clarified by examining three major themes in Vygotsky's writings

highlighted by Wertsch (1991): 1) individual development, including higher mental

functioning, has its origins in social sources; 2) human action, on both the social and

individual planes, is mediated by tools and signs; and 3) the first two themes are best

examined through genetic, or developmental, analysis. In developing these themes, we will

rely on Vygotsky's writings as well as the elaborations of his ideas by his coworkers and

scholars influenced by his work.

Social Sources of Development

Human development starts with dependence on caregivers. The developing individual relies

on the vast pool of transmitted experiences of others. Vygotsky in his well-known "genetic law

of development" emphasizes this primacy of social interaction in human development:

Every function in the cultural development of the child comes on the stage twice, in two

respects; first in the social, later in the psychological, first in relations between people as an

interpsychological category, afterwards within the child as an interpsychological

category....All higher psychological functions are internalized relationships of the social

kind, and constitute the social structure of personality. (In Valsiner, 1987, p. 67)

This principle describes a process situated in, but not limited to, social interaction. When

beginning an activity, learners depend on others with more experience. Over time, they take on

increasing responsibility for their own learning and participation in joint activity (Lave &

Wenger, 1991). Expanding Vygotsky's genetic law of development, Rogoff characterizes this

process as guided participation. In her cross-cultural studies, she documents children's varying

forms of participation with parents and peers. Rogoff (1990) found that even when children were

not conversational partners with adults, they were involved in the adult world as participants in

adult agricultural and household work. She describes the supportive engagement of Mayan

mothers with their children as an example of the nonverbal guidance adults give children, .

The routine arrangements and interactions between children and their caregivers and

companions provide children with thousands of opportunities to observe and participate in the

skilled activities of their culture. Through repeated and varied experience in supported routine

and challenging situations, children become skilled practitioners in the specific cognitive

activities in their communities. (1991, p. 351)

Thus learners participate in a wide variety of joint activities which provide the opportunity for

synthesizing several influences into the learner's novel modes of understanding and

participation. By internalizing the effects of working together, the novice acquires useful

strategies and crucial knowledge.

The acquisition of language provides another example of a social source of development.

Zukow-Goldring and Ferko (1994) and other researchers have shown the close relationship

between promoting shared attention between beginning speakers and their caregivers and

the emergence of the lexicon. Contemporary research supports the sociocultural claim that

the relationship between individuals forms a basis for cognitive and linguistic mastery.

This process, whether in the classroom or elsewhere, includes transmission, construction,

transaction, and transformation in a continuing, complex interplay.

Semiotic Mediation

Semiotic mediation is key to all aspects of knowledge co-construction. For Vygotsky,

semiotic mechanisms (including psychological tools) mediate social and individual functioning,

and connect the external and the internal, the social and the individual (Wertsch and Stone,

1985). Vygotsky (1981) listed a number of examples of semiotic means: "language; various

systems of counting; mnemonic techniques; algebraic symbol systems; works of art;

writing; schemes, diagrams, maps and mechanical drawings; all sorts of conventional signs

and so on" (p. 137). Other tools, increasingly recognized in sociocultural discourse -- the

paint brush, the computer, calendars, and symbol systems -- are central to the

appropriation of knowledge through representational activity by the developing individual.

In the introduction to Vygotsky's Thought and Language , Jerome Bruner (1962)

described Vygotsky's view of the role of semiotic mediation:

He believed that in mastering nature we master ourselves. For it is the internalization of overt

action that makes thought, and particularly the internalization of external dialogue that brings the

powerful tool of language to bear on the stream of thought. Man, if you will, is shaped by the

tools and instruments that he comes to use, and neither the mind nor the hand alone can amount

to much....And if neither hand nor intellect alone prevails, the tools and aids that do are the

developing streams of internalized language and conceptual thought that sometimes run parallel

and sometimes merge, each affecting the other. (p. vii)

Wertsch (1991) adopts Wittgenstein's metaphor of a socially provided tool kit of semiotic

means. Those means and practices, which become internalized and available for independent

activity, are critical in supporting and transforming mental functioning. Physical tools are

directed toward the external world; psychological tools are directed internally and are

appropriated during activity.

Knowledge is not internalized directly, but through the use of psychological tools. Vygotsky's

colleague Leontiev (1981) used the term appropriation to describe the adoption by an individual

of one of these socially available psychological tools and wrote that children cannot and need

not reinvent the artifacts that have taken millennia to evolve in order to appropriate such objects

into their own system of activity. The child has only come to an understanding that is adequate

for using the culturally elaborated object in the novel life circumstances he encounters. (Quoted

in Newman, Griffin, & Cole, 1989, p. 63)

Leinhardt (1996) in her discussion of teaching--instructional explanations of

mathematical concepts provides another example of semiotic mediation. In describing the

role of representations, she illustrates the concept of "percent" by discussing various

representations, such as number lines, circles and squares. Representational activities,

whether in the form of inner speech, imagery, or kinetic concepts are linked to culturally

shared systems, such as language, and to developmental activities including scaffolding 2

(John-Steiner, 1995).

Thus, psychological tools are not invented by the individual in isolation. They are products of

sociocultural evolution to which individuals have access by being actively engaged in the

practices of their communities. In a recent article, Wertsch (1994) elaborates on the centrality of

mediation in understanding Vygotsky's contributions to psychology and education.

[Mediation] is the key in his approach to understanding how human mental functioning

is tied to cultural, institutional, and historical settings since these settings shape and

provide the cultural tools that are mastered by individuals to form this functioning. In this

approach, the mediational means are what might be termed the "carriers" of sociocultural

patterns and knowledge. (p. 204)

Cognitive pluralism.

 Although the importance of semiotic mediation in thinking is recognized by most members of

the sociocultural thought community, interpretations of it differ. Almost all sociocultural

researchers place language in a central position; however, some consider that other semiotic

means are of little theoretical interest (Kozulin, 1990). We claim a pluralistic rather than a

monistic theory of semiotic mediation (John-Steiner, 1991; 1995) and have coined the term

cognitive pluralism for this stance. Evidence for cognitive pluralism includes the planning

notes of experienced thinkers which incorporate words, drawings, musical notes, and

scientific diagrams (John-Steiner, 1985).

The diversity of these means and the psychological tools that they represent are of

special interest to educators who work in multicultural settings and with children who

have special needs. In an issue of the Educational Psychologist devoted to Vygotsky's ideas,

Boris Gindis (1995) describes the emphasis Vygotsky placed on the variety of psychological

tools in approaching the study of children who had special physical or mental

circumstances. "Vygotsky pointed out that our civilization has already developed different

means (e.g. Braille system, sign language, lip-reading, finger spelling, etc.) to accommodate

a handicapped child's unique way of acculturation through acquiring various symbol

systems" (p. 79).

These acts of representation are embedded in social practice and rely on socially

developed semiotic means. Ecology, history, culture, and family organization play roles in

patterning experience and events in the creation of knowledge (John-Steiner, 1995). For

example, the tasks confronting children, such as learning to talk, to walk, and to attach

meaning to their experiences are reflected in cognitive strategies, derived in part from the

culturally patterned environment into which they are born. Their thought is shaped by the

prevalent methods of physical and economic survival, by the language and visual symbols

used by their people, and by socially ordered ways of parenting. Some children who are

born into tribal or agricultural communities spend many hours strapped to the back of

their mothers and other caregivers. In this position, they observe and represent the life of

their community in a way that is not possible to children who are placed in cribs and

playpens (John-Steiner, 1985)

Representational activities and the sociocultural theory of semiotic mediation are fundamental

to Vygotsky's concept of internalization and the transformation of interpersonal processes into

intrapersonal ones. Vygotsky used the concept of semiotic mediation to explain qualitative

transformations in the human mind historically, ontogenetically, and microgenetically. The

role played by semiotic mediation in the development of higher psychological processes

provided a central focus for Vygotsky's research. The concept of semiotic mediation is

essential to the sociocultural view that the process of internalization is transformative

rather than transmissive.

Genetic Analysis

Vygotsky used genetic analysis which examines the origins and the history of phenomena,

focusing on their interconnectedness , to develop his theoretical framework and guide his

research. In describing this approach he emphasized the need to concentrate not on the product

of development but on the very process by which higher forms are established....To study

something historically means to study it in the process of change; that is the dialectical

method's basic demand. To encompass in research the process of a given thing's

development in all its phases and changes --from birth to death -- fundamentally means to

discover its nature, its essence, for "it is only in movement that a body shows what it is."

Thus, the historical (that is in the broadest sense of history) study of behavior is not an

auxiliary aspect of theoretical study, but rather forms its very base. (Vygotsky, 1978, pp.

64-65)

According to this perspective, learning and development take place in socially and culturally

shaped contexts. Historical conditions are constantly changing, resulting in changed contexts and

opportunities for learning. For that reason, there can be no universal schema that adequately

represents the dynamic relation between external and internal aspects of development (John-

Steiner & Souberman, 1978).

Vygotsky argued that psychological systems that unite separate functions into new

combinations and complexes arise in the process of development. An example of this unification

is the linking of spoken and written language into a new and broader semiotic system. When it

was discovered that it was "possible to represent the sounds of language using marks in clay just

as it is possible to represent objects" (Cole, 1990, p. 95), a qualitative transformation in the

development of humanity occurred. The unification of separate functions represented in literacy

also provides insights into the relationships between individual and social processes.

In his studies of disabilities, Vygotsky analyzed the unification of separate physiological

(anatomical, biochemical, and evolving neural) and psychological processes. His collaborator,

neuropsychologist Alexander Luria (1973, 1979) examined cognitive functions in brain damage

at different levels of analysis. This led to the concept of functional systems which is particularly

useful in the examination of phenomena at the interface of neural and cognitive processes.

Functional systems are dynamic psychological systems in which diverse internal and external

processes are coordinated and integrated. These systems reveal a variety of characteristics

including the use of variable means or mechanisms by individuals to perform particular tasks. In

order to succeed when faced with new learning challenges, these individuals reorganize their

cognitive strategies. Cole and Scribner (1974) used the concept of functional systems

extensively in their cross-cultural research, as did Newman, Griffin, & Cole (1989), who found

that "[E]xternal devices like talk and charts and writing are windows in the evolution and

appearance of cognitive constructs. They are an essential part of the functional system that gives

the actors as well as the analysts access to the changes occurring" (p. 73).

Functional system analysis captures the dynamic relationship between changing and stable

features of phenomena and the ways in which these are integrated in different contexts. In work

with Native American children, John-Steiner and Osterreich (1975) found it particularly useful

in examining the children's use of various learning styles and modalities to accomplish similar

goals and tasks. A functional systems approach helped analyze Native American children's

learning approaches, viewing them as part of a dynamic system instead of splitting them into

visual and verbal approaches.

Within genetic analysis the use of functional systems provides a framework for representing

the complex interrelationships between external devices, psychological tools, the individual, and

the social world. Vygotsky used the sociocultural framework based on the three central tenets

described above -- social sources of development, semiotic mediation, and genetic analysis -- to

develop his concept of internalization.

Vygotsky's Methodological Approach

An understanding of Vygotsky's methodological approach helps to clarify the concept of

internalization and to differentiate it from other theoretical perspectives. Vygotsky approached

methodological issues on two interrelated levels -- the theoretical and the psychological. On the

theoretical level he examined complex systems in the process of change, using dialectical logic

to understand the interrelationships between components of the systems. On the psychological

level he chose research methods to capture the dynamics of process consistent with his

theoretical approach. On both levels his emphasis was on the examination of cognitive change in

diverse contexts. "Any psychological process, whether the development of thought or voluntary

behavior, is a process undergoing changes right before one's eyes" (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 61) To

capture the processes at play, Vygotsky used the experimental-developmental method in which

developmental changes are provoked in laboratory settings. Through intervention, the

experimenter is able to record participants' initial efforts to solve a problem beyond their existing

means or strategies. One of the intervention methods was providing auxiliary means through

which the problem could be solved. This type of mediated assistance was of theoretical and

methodological interest to Vygotsky. In studying memory in complex choice responses, he

focused on the developmental changes taking place in the course of one or several sessions

during which the learner appropriates new psychological tools.

Contemporary Vygotskian scholars researching cognitive change in classroom learning rely

on both experimental and qualitative methods to focus on developmental processes.

Sociocultural researchers reject "the cause-effect, stimulus-response, explanatory science in

favor of a science that emphasizes the emergent nature of mind in activity and that

acknowledges a central role for interpretation in its explanatory framework" (Cole, 1996).

Vygotskian researchers use this theoretical and methodological approach to study and

describe the concept of internalization. This is germane to the discussion on classroom learning

and teaching in this issue of the Educational Psychologist. There is a vigorous discussion among

sociocultural theorists and proponents of differing theoretical perspectives about the way that

concepts are learned and the processes through which they are acquired, appropriated, or

internalized. These processes cannot be adequately understood, we believe, without

comprehending the dialectical method Vygotsky used to examine them. This section presents

Vygotsky's use of the dialectical method, explains the authors' conception of internalization, and

distinguishes sociocultural concepts of internalization from other perspectives.

Dialectical Method

Vygotsky did not simply try to impose laws or principles of dialectics on existing

psychological theories, rather he scientifically investigated and analyzed concrete questions in

specific areas of psychological inquiry. This approach was described by one of his collaborators,

Leontiev (1977), who wrote that in science "dialectic logic does not amount to just the

formalistic imposition of its principles on any particular scientific discipline. It itself develops as

scientific inquiry proceeds; it is the result of empirical science"(p. 54). Vygotsky underscored

the centrality of this method to all of his work. "The search for method becomes one of the

most important problems of the entire enterprise of understanding the uniquely human forms

of psychological activity. In this case, the method is simultaneously prerequisite and product,

the tool and the result of the study..."(Vygotsky, 1978, p. 65).

In contrast to Aristotelian logic which placed phenomena, such as mind and matter, into fixed,

unchanging categories, Vygotsky analyzed higher mental functions as developmental processes

in a constant state of dialectical change. He examined mind and matter in their

interconnectedness and included a "scientific explanation of both external manifestations and the

process under study" (1978, p. 63).

A central concept of dialectics, the unification of contradictions, distinguishes it from

traditional approaches. "Whereas, within the standard view, conceptual unity among objects

relies on the commonality of elements, it is the interrelatedness of diverse elements and the

integration of opposites that creates unity within dialectics" (Falmagne, 1995, p. 207). Dialectics

surmounts dichotomies by looking at phenomena as syntheses of contradictions. In twentieth

century physics, it was the unified vision of light as both wave and particle that led to a broader

theoretical understanding. In nature, qualitative transformations unify contradictions -- water, for

example, as unification of hydrogen and oxygen will go through transformations from gas to

liquid to solid with quantitative changes in temperature. Additionally, physical tools can unify

contradictory functions -- the claw hammer is used to both pound in and pull out nails; the pencil

is used to create and erase (Weber, 1992).

Vygotsky (1986) used the dialectical notion of synthesis to analyze a central psychological

tool -- verbal thought. He examined the way that thought and speech, which initially have

separate planes or levels of development in children in a "prelinguistic period in thought and a

preintellectual period of speech," become inextricably intertwined (p. 210). Throughout his work

Vygotsky uses the dialectical method to analyze, explain, and describe interrelationships

fundamental to human development where others posited dichotomies -- for example, mind and

matter, language and thought, external and inner speech, nature and culture, and social and

individual processes in the construction of knowledge.

Our concept of development implies a rejection of the frequently held view that cognitive

development results from the gradual accumulation of separate changes. We believe that child

development is a complex dialectical process characterized by periodicity, unevenness in the

development of different functions, metamorphosis or qualitative transformation of one form

into the other, intertwining of external and internal factors, and adaptive processes which

overcome impediments that the child encounters. (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 73)

Using this approach, sociocultural theorists analyze internalization and individual and social

processes as interrelated parts of neurophysiological, psychological, educational, political, and

cultural systems (Tobach, 1995).

Internalization

Our concept of internalization recognizes unique human minds which owe their existence to

and are inextricably intertwined with social, historical, cultural, and material processes

(including brain activities). Internalization is conceived of as a representational activity, a

process that occurs simultaneously in social practice and in the human brain/mind. Sociocultural

researchers include the learners' appropriation of socially elaborated symbol systems as a critical

aspect of learning-driven development. This appropriation of symbol systems was a central

focus of Vygotsky's work, particularly as applied to educational pedagogy, and led to his most

fully elaborated application of the concept of internalization -- the transformation of

communicative language into inner speech and further into verbal thinking (Vygotsky, 1986, Ch.

7).

Although "cognitive constructivist research and practice...is mostly oriented toward

understanding the individual learner" (Derry, 1996, this issue) and separates individual processes

of knowledge construction from social processes of joint understanding, we think of them as

connected and interdependent. The development of the mind of the child is both individual and

social at the same time and is the result of a long process of developmental events (Vygotsky,

1978). A focus of sociocultural research is the study of the way that the co-construction of

knowledge is internalized, appropriated, transmitted, or transformed in formal and informal

learning settings.

Vygotsky examined and explained the processes through which humans construct minds in

interaction with the external world of nature and with other humans, changing in the process

both themselves and nature.

The dialectical approach, while admitting the influence of nature on man, asserts that man, in

turn, affects nature and creates through his changes in nature new natural conditions for his

existence. This position is the keystone of our approach to the study and interpretation of man's

higher psychological functions and serves as the basis for the new methods of experimentation

and analysis we advocate. (Vygotsky, 1978. pp. 60-61)

The Russian philosopher, E. V. Ilyenkov adds that "the socio-historical environment, the

world of things, created by human labour, and the system of human relations, formed in the

process of labour" must also be considered, and that "outside the individual lies not only nature

as such ('in itself'), but also humanized nature, nature remade by human labour" (Bakhurst, 1995,

p. 165).

In a psychological framework the unification of nature and culture is powerfully embodied in

early development. For example, a human embryo is both a material and a conceptual reality for

the mother, but its own consciousness is dependent upon the full (prenatal and postnatal)

development of the infant's own nervous system and his or her subsequent internalization of

culturally developed sign systems. Bakhurst (1995) writes that "the nature and content of an

individual's mental life cannot be understood independently of the culture of which that

individual is part" (p. 159). He further suggests that there are two intuitions which lie behind the

claims of "strong cultural theories of the mind":

The first is that meaning is the medium of the mental, and meaning is (in some sense) socially

constructed; the second is that the human mind, and the forms of talk in which human beings

explain and predict the operations of minds, should be understood on the model of tools, and like

all artifacts, we cannot make sense of them independently of the social processes which make

them what they are. (p. 159)

Lemke (1995) poses the contradictory character of the relationship between individual and

social processes in the making of meaning: "how to have an active, creative human subject

which constructs social meanings, at the same time that this subject itself must be a social

construction" (p. 80). Vygotsky's use of dialectics to unravel this contradictory relationship

between individual and social processes in which the individual constructs the social and at the

same time is constructed by the social distinguishes the sociocultural perspective from others

presented in this issue. We favor the view of Penuel and Wertsch (1995) that "sociocultural

processes on the one hand and individual functioning on the other [exist] in a dynamic,

irreducible tension rather than a static notion of social determination. A sociocultural

approach...considers these poles of sociocultural processes and individual functioning as

interacting moments in human action, rather than as static processes that exist in isolation from

one another" (p. 84).

Distinctions from Other Perspectives

The way in which internalization has been interpreted by a variety of critics highlights the

distinctions between sociocultural and other approaches. For example, social constructivist

critics of the Vygotskian framework such as Cobb & Yackel (1996) characterize it in this issue

of Educational Psychologist as a transmission model through which students inherit the cultural

meanings that constitute their intellectual bequest from prior generations. Their position is both

linked to and differentiated from a Vygotskian stand when they question the metaphor "of

students and teachers being embedded or included in social practice" (Cobb, Wood, & Yackel,

1993, p. 96). Although their emergent approach has many commonalities with sociocultural

theory, Cobb and Yackel repeatedly criticize the latter as a transfer-of-knowledge model where

students imitate "established mathematical practices" (1996,). This interpretation of sociocultural

theory reduces and simplifies the mutuality of learning, and its interpersonal and

intergenerational dynamic. In attempting to differentiate their approaches from sociocultural

theory, social constructivists misinterpret the transformative character of internalization as

described by sociocultural researchers (John-Steiner, 1996).

The conceptualization of internalization as unidirectional transmission freezes the debate, in

part, by distorting sociocultural theorists' views of the roles of both teacher and student. It does

not recognize that the sociocultural theory of internalization analyzes the complex process of

transmission, transformation, and synthesis in the co-construction of knowledge. As Leontiev

wrote, "the process of internalization is not the transferal of an external activity to a preexisting

internal 'plane of consciousness': it is the process in which this plane is formed" (Wertsch &

Stone, 1985, p. 163). In classroom learning the student plays an active role and constantly

informs the teacher as their mutual negotiation and collaboration build knowledge.

As well as the presentation of new information, there needs to be extended opportunity for

discussion and problem-solving in the context of shared activities, in which meaning and action

are collaboratively constructed and negotiated. In other words, education must be thought of in

terms not of the transmission of knowledge but of transaction and transformation. (Chang-Wells

& Wells, 1993, p. 59)

We will explore other studies of classroom collaboration exhibiting transformative knowledge

co-construction later in this article.

There are different modes of internalization, reflecting different teaching/interaction

strategies. A continuum with direct instruction on one end to creative and collaborative learning

on the other could describe the wide range of teaching/learning situations in which

internalization occurs. Whether in the learning of a young child or in the activities of

experienced thinkers, internalization is a fundamental part of the life-long process of the co-

construction of knowledge and the creation of the new.

Other critics warn that using the concept of internalization to explain the learning processes

creates the danger of focusing on just the individual mental construction of knowledge. For

example, Martin Packer's (1993) analysis, which is linked to an hermeneutic, interpretive

approach, suggests that "Descartes' ghost may still be with us" (p. 263), because he sees

elements of dualism in sociocultural concepts of internalization. While he appreciates the work

of Vygotskian scholars, Packer is concerned that "the processes and mechanisms being

examined keep creeping back inside the head" (p. 263). In contrasting the view of learning as

mental change with an alternative which focuses on participatory activities, his analysis is

similar to that of Barbara Rogoff (1994) who writes that "learning is a process of transforming

participation in shared sociocultural endeavors "(p. 210).

In our view, internalization is simultaneously a social and an individual process. In working

with, through, and beyond what they have appropriated in social participation and then

internalized, individuals co-construct new knowledge. In contrast to facile internalization which

leads to a limited combination of ideas, internalization that involves sustained social and

individual endeavors becomes a constituent part of the interaction with what is known and leads

to the creation of new knowledge. Chang-Wells & Wells (1993) in their study of the role of

instructional conversations in classroom learning describe this interdependent and transformative

view of internalization: "...[I]t is at points of negotiation of meaning in conversation that learning

and development occur, as each learner's individual psychological processes mediate (and at the

same time are mediated by) the constitutive intermental processes of the group" (p. 86).

Sociocultural approaches are also distinguished from other perspectives by the importance

they place on cultural variation and its interrelationship with development (John-Steiner &

Panofsky, 1992). This distinction is particularly relevant in contrasting sociocultural approaches

with those derived from a Piagetian framework. The emphasis on culture has resulted in the

broad use by sociocultural researchers of approaches which examine the ways in which learning

and teaching take place under differing cultural circumstances and in differing historical

contexts, contributing to a contextualized rather than a universalistic theory of development. And

while social constructivists do engage in an analysis of cultural norms, they maintain a

conceptual dichotomy between the individual's constructive activity on the one hand and social

processes on the other. For example, Cobb and Yackel (1996) view the individual through one

lens and the social through another without making explicit the dialectical interdependence of

social and individual processes. To study these processes interdependently requires a reliance on

cross-cultural comparisons and active collaboration between researchers drawn from varied

backgrounds examining teachers and children in diverse settings.

The significant role of cross-cultural comparisons in theory construction and the development

of educational practice is illustrated by the work of Tharp and Gallimore (1988) and their

collaborators who developed a highly effective, culturally sensitive approach to teaching

Hawaiian children. In their well-known Kamehameha Early Education Program (KEEP)

instructional conversations are designed to resemble the talk story format -- overlapping speech,

joint performance, and informal turn taking -- favored in the native Hawaiian community.

However, when this highly successful program was implemented among Navajo children, the

results were mixed (Jordan, Tharp, & Vogt, 1985). The researchers became aware of the

difficulties in applying a promising culturally sensitive approach from one indigenous context to

another. They found that for Hawaiian children groups of four to five students of mixed sex and

ability produce the maximum peer interaction and learning cooperation. However, Navajo

children were uncomfortable in the larger mixed groups and worked best in dyads of the same

sex. These studies illustrate the importance to sociocultural approaches of inclusion of

anthropologists, Native teachers, and the learners themselves as educational activity planners

whose joint efforts help educators understand the culturally-patterned learning styles children

bring to school. This emphasis upon interdisciplinary action research by Vygotskian educators

contrasts with other approaches in educational psychology.

Sociocultural researchers emphasize methods which document cognitive and social change.

Rather than seeing a dichotomy between quantitative and qualitative research, approaches are

chosen that emphasize process and development and the multiple ways in which both can be

revealed. They include experimental research such as Frauenglass and Diaz's (1985) work on

private speech which studied Vygotsky's hypotheses on the universality and self-regulatory

significance of private speech. In a laboratory setting they "compared the frequencies of

preschoolers' private speech in perceptual versus semantic tasks, with or without instructions that

permitted and encouraged the use of overt verbalizations....[And found] that researchers who

choose to study private speech in laboratory settings must pay close attention to task and setting

variables that may increase or inhibit the amount of private speech produced by children in their

samples" (Diaz, 1992, p. 57). Other sociocultural approaches combine experimental and

ethnographic research as illustrated by Scribner and Cole's (1981) work in Liberia. In their

studies of literacy they include observational and ethnographic methods and combined them with

tasks first developed in laboratory settings. Examples of sociocultural methods of research on

cognitive change in the classroom are described in the next section .

Sociocultural Educational Research and Practice

This section briefly examines Vygotsky's analysis of the relationship between learning and

development, his concept of the zone of proximal development, and implications drawn from

them for research on collaborative learning. Vygotsky's analysis of spontaneous and scientific

concepts is then examined, focusing on the central roles in concept formation played by

language and culture. The integrated influences of culture and language are then examined in

practical applications of sociocultural approaches to classroom learning and teaching in literacy

instruction. An additional and related theme highlighted in this section is the way sociocultural

theory helps educators provide instruction which recognizes and empowers linguistically and

culturally diverse students.

Learning and Development and the Zone of Proximal Development

In contrast to prevailing theories of his time which dichotomized learning and development

viewing one as an external and the other as an internal process, Vygotsky (1978) looked at their

unity and interdependence starting from a child's birth.

Our hypothesis establishes the unity but not the identity of learning processes and internal

developmental processes. It presupposes that the one is converted into the other. Therefore, it

becomes an important concern of psychological research to show how external knowledge and

abilities in children become internalized. (pp. 90-91)

He thus criticized theories such as Piaget's, in which "maturation is viewed as a precondition

of learning but never the result of it" (p. 80) and developed the following position:

...[L]earning awakens a variety of internal developmental processes that are able to operate

only when the child is interacting with people in his environment and in cooperation with his

peers....[L]earning is not development; however, properly organized learning results in mental

development and sets in motion a variety of developmental processes that would be impossible

apart from learning. Thus learning is a necessary and universal aspect of the process of

developing culturally organized, specifically human, psychological functions. (p. 90)

To help explain the way that this social and participatory learning took place, Vygotsky

(1978) developed the concept of the zone of proximal development (ZPD), which he defined as

"...the distance between the actual developmental level as determined through independent

problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving

under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers" (p. 86). Sociocultural

theorists, expanding the concept of the zone of proximal development, increasingly

conceptualize learning as distributed (Cole & Engeström, 1993), interactive (Chang-Wells &

Wells, 1993), contextual (John-Steiner, Panofsky, & Smith, 1994), and the result of the learners'

participation in a community of practice (Rogoff, 1994).

Ann Brown and her collaborators (1992, 1993) have developed and implemented educational

programs based on this concept of learning. They suggest that the active agents within the zone

of proximal development "can include people, adults and children, with various degrees of

expertise, but it can also include artifacts, such as books, videos, wall displays, scientific

equipment and a computer environment intended to support intentional learning" (1993, p. 191).

In expanding the zone of proximal development to include artifacts in addition to people, Brown

integrates Vygotsky's analyses of tools and symbols with the roles played by the participants in

the learning process. One of the important features of Brown and her collaborators' work is the

examination of the way "divergent classrooms can become learning communities -- communities

in which each participant makes significant contributions to the emergent understandings of all

members, despite having unequal knowledge concerning the topic under study" (Palincsar,

Brown, & Campione, 1993, p. 43). They examine the role of "reciprocal teaching," an approach

in which "students and teachers take turns leading discussions about shared text" (p. 43), to see

whether structured dialogues foster a learning community. The teachers in these studies have a

changing role. They share with the students the well-defined tasks of questioning, clarifying,

summarizing, and predicting in order to construct text-based knowledge. These studies

exemplify two themes in sociocultural approaches to classroom learning and teaching -- (1) the

implementation of an educational program that allows for or encourages the co-construction of

knowledge and (2) the analysis of this learning that contributes to our understanding of

classroom learning from a sociocultural perspective. Collaborative learning plays an increasing

role in these as well as many other innovative classrooms .

Collaboration Research

In current applications of sociocultural theory with emphases on co-participation, cooperative

learning, and joint discovery, teachers bring existing knowledge to students by co-constructing it

with them. These applications have made clear the need to examine patterns of interaction and

collaboration in this type of classroom. A major goal of our current research is to produce a

theoretical model of the collaboration process and to identify collaborator's values, roles,

working methods, and conflict-resolution strategies.3 Through the analysis of selected project

documents and transcribed discourse from group meetings, as well as through focused

interviews, our initial work has revealed four patterns - distributed, complementary, family, and

integrative -- among individual, small groups, and larger complex collaborations (see Figure 1).

We use a circle and dotted lines to show that collaborative efforts are dynamic, changing

processes. While the corresponding characteristics of values, working methods, and roles for

each pattern are depicted in the bands around the wheel, there is no rigidity in the divisions. The

order of the patterns is not hierarchical, and a collaboration can be initiated at any level and be

transformed over time. A goal is to examine how the resolutions of tensions inherent in

collaborations transform the character of the collaboration and determine whether it continues.

In the move from the outer edge of the wheel in Figure 1 to the center, collaborations tend to

be longer term and are characterized by the increasing importance of negotiated and common

values. In distributed collaborations, such as collective e-mail discussions where the exchange of

information is featured, values need not extend beyond similar interests; whereas in integrated

collaborations -- long-term, often dyadic and intimate -- values are reflected in the development

of shared ideologies. Complementary collaborations, such as those found in the organization of

teams in classrooms and in the business world, are distinguished by clear divisions of labor and

discipline-based approaches. In contrast, family collaborations, often centered on providing

social services including education, are characterized by the fluidity of roles and the integration

of expertise.

The conceptualization of the patterns of collaboration in Figure 1 is of use in the study of

classrooms engaged in collaborative learning. Complex social relationships and differing

cultural values will shape the intellectual interdependence in the co-construction of knowledge in

classes which are not based on the traditional teacher-centered transmission model of education.

The way that cultural and linguistic factors shape learning and development and the impact

that these factors have on pedagogical approaches provide a theoretical foundation for

sociocultural research of collaboration in the classroom. There is a growing literature on

cooperative learning and peer collaboration of interest to both Piagetian and Vygotskian

researchers (Damon & Phelps, 1989; Slavin, 1983, 1987; Tudge & Rogoff, 1989) which can

inform classroom practice.

In differentiating their approach from others Forman and McPhail (1993) highlight three

features of a sociocultural perspective on the study of collaboration in education. First, rather

than locating the source of individual motivation and understanding within or between

individuals, they locate it in sociocultural practices in which children have the opportunity "to

observe and participate in essential economic, religious, legal, political, instructional, or

recreational activities." Through guided participation "children internalize or appropriate their

affective, social, and intellectual significance" (p. 218). Second, Forman and McPhail write:

For Vygotsky, cognitive, social, and motivational factors were interrelated in development.

Thus it makes no sense to evaluate the benefits of peer collaboration in purely intellectual terms,

e.g., via individual achievement testing. A Vygotskian perspective also implies that the

outcomes of peer collaboration must be evaluated in context and over time. (p. 218)

The third feature of Forman and McPhail's approach is that discourse analysis can be used to

examine participants' "epistemological and affective dispositions toward collaborative problem

solving. Their discourse should reflect their individual and shared understandings and feelings

about the task setting, as well as the definitions of the activity that are provided by their

particular cultural and historical situation" (pp. 218-219).

Using this framework, Forman and McPhail (1993) examine the ways in which learners assist

each other. Their work, which focuses on dyads engaged in problem-solving activities, illustrates

the complementary pattern of collaboration. The two students in the study, after initial

differences on task definition, developed a division of labor based on areas of expertise reflected

in specialized forms of discourse -- scientific and mathematical. This study highlights the need

to develop joint perspectives over time to achieve shared goals. Forman and McPhail (1993)

emphasize the role of mutuality and the use of specialized forms of discourse "to engage in

logical arguments, to share ideas, and to work together in the pursuit of common goals" (p. 226).

(This finding corresponds to our own, where we have found the importance of trust in the

development of working methods in sustained collaboration.)

A different pattern of collaboration was revealed in Moll & Whitmore's (1993) study of a

bilingual classroom in the Southwestern United States in which reading and writing in two

languages were integrated in project-oriented literacy activities. This study, using a sociocultural

approach, examined the interactive and contextual character of cognitive change as students

created and participated in communities of learners. The collaboration described by Moll and

Whitmore (1993) exemplified the family pattern, with a fluidity of roles and a reliance on

various areas of expertise from the students and the teacher in the joint construction of

knowledge. Because the teachers and children were actively and mutually creating learning

situations, the roles of both were flexible. The children often took the lead in shaping text-related

discussions. The teacher's roles include those of guide and supporter whose "guidance is

purposely mediated, almost hidden, embedded in the activities;" participant in thematic research

activities; evaluator of the students' development; and facilitator and planner who organizes "the

environment, curriculum, and materials to provide functional and purposeful uses for language,

literacy, and learning processes" (p. 38). At the same time the "children have considerable

control of virtually all aspects of their own learning experiences. They select groups, reading

materials, writing topics, theme topics, and language to use for each" (p. 38). Moll and

Whitmore (1993) describe a pattern of collaboration where the development of trust among the

participants is of central concern. These patterns of shared responsibilities in teaching and

learning have contributed to a broadened understanding of the zone of proximal development

and help illustrate the emerging patterns of collaboration shown in Figure 1.

Another example of the family pattern of collaboration is the after-school program known as

the "Fifth Dimension," developed by Michael Cole, Peg Griffin, and their collaborators at the

University of California, San Diego, which brings together children and adolescents, community

institutions, undergraduate students, and researchers. It relies upon computer technology,

collaborative learning, play, and imagination "within the framework of a shared and voluntarily

accepted system of impersonal rules" (Nicolopoulou & Cole, 1993, p. 293). Cole (1995) and his

colleagues have extended Vygotskian analyses of learning beyond the dyadic and small group

level to include an examination of different sites as institutional and cultural contexts for these

activities. The success of the Fifth Dimension is based, in part, on the character of the

collaboration which includes a fluidity of roles across ages and areas of expertise. The

integration of play and learning helps meet the shared goals and objectives of the program. This

innovative, collaborative program contrasts with traditional models of education which isolate

teachers in their classrooms.

Sociocultural research on collaboration also includes examination of the mutual dependence

of teachers engaged in collective activity and dialogue in the process of curriculum innovation.

Yjrö Engeström (1994) in his study of teachers found an additional benefit of collaboration

research:

One of the most persistent methodological difficulties of studying thinking has to do with

access to on-line data from thought processes. When thinking is defined as a private, individual

phenomenon only indirect data is accessible. Thinking embedded in collaborative practical

activity must to a significant degree take the form of talk, gesture, use of artifacts, or some other

publicly accessible mediational instrumentality; otherwise mutual formation of ideas would be

rendered impossible. Collaborative thinking opens up access to direct data on thought processes.

(p. 45)

Teachers in traditional schools often don't have the opportunity to interact with colleagues as

in the Engeström study and thus have "limited opportunities for receiving assistance through

modeling and feedback, two means of assistance crucial to acquisition of complex social

repertoires....necessary to meet the criterion of teaching-as-assisted-performance in the zone of

proximal development" (Gallimore & Tharp, 1990, p. 201).

A particularly powerful example of collaboration, and one that can inform our efforts at

educational reform, is provided by Brazilian teachers who worked together with community

activists to educate previously excluded populations (Souza Lima, 1995). Their local initiatives,

broadened and strengthened through the use of the sociocultural theories of Vygotsky, Wallon,

and Freire, are being applied to citywide and broader reform efforts. Studies of teachers in

dynamic interactions with other teachers, students, researchers, and reformers will be important

in the ongoing sociocultural research into collaboration and educational change.

Spontaneous and Scientific Concepts

In classrooms in which there is co-participation, cooperative learning, and joint discovery,

environments are created in which students are able to build upon the culturally-shaped

knowledge and value systems they bring to school. Vygotsky's analysis of spontaneous and

scientific concepts provides a foundation for examining how children learn before they enter

school and how this knowledge relates to concepts learned at school.

By spontaneous concepts Vygotsky meant concepts that are acquired by the child outside of

the context of explicit instruction. In themselves these concepts are mostly taken from adults, but

they never have been introduced to the child in a systematic fashion and no attempts have been

made to connect them with other related concepts. Because Vygotsky explicitly acknowledged

the role of adults in the formation of these so-called spontaneous concepts he preferred to call

them "everyday" concepts, thus avoiding the idea that they had been spontaneously invented by

the child....By "scientific" concepts Vygotsky meant concepts that had been explicitly introduced

by a teacher at school. Ideally such concepts would cover the essential aspects of an area of

knowledge and would be presented as a system of interrelated ideas. (van der Veer & Vlasiner,

1991, p. 270)

Even though Vygotsky discusses spontaneous and scientific concepts by highlighting their

distinguishing characteristics, he still recognized their interdependence. "We believe that the two

processes -- the development of spontaneous and of nonspontaneous concepts -- are related and

constantly influence each other. They are parts of a single process: the development of concept

formation which is affected by varying external and internal conditions but is essentially a

unitary process, not a conflict of antagonistic, mutually exclusive forms of thinking" (Vygotsky,

1986, p. 157).

The social situatedness of concept formation is studied by Moll (1992) who uses Vygotsky's

analysis to gain insight into providing effective education for linguistically and culturally diverse

students:

One advantage [of a sociocultural approach] is that in studying human beings dynamically,

within their social circumstances, in their full complexity, we gain a much more complete and...a

much more valid understanding of them. We also gain, particularly in the case of minority

children, a more positive view of their capabilities and how our pedagogy often constrains, and

just as often distorts, what they do and what they are capable of doing. (p. 239)

Analyzing how students learn, as well as acknowledging and attempting to understand the

culturally-conditioned knowledge they bring to the classroom, can help lead to effective

teaching. In an ethnographic study looking at how the knowledge that existed in Mexican

American students' households could be used to bring about innovative instructional practice,

Moll & Greenberg (1990) found a variety of "funds of knowledge" ranging from knowledge

"about different soils, the cultivation of plants, and water management...animal husbandry,

veterinary medicine, ranch economy, and mechanics as well as carpentry, masonry, electrical

wiring..." (p. 323). They also found that this knowledge was socially distributed and that a

reciprocal relationship existed between everyday knowledge used to understand school material

and classroom activities used to help students understand social reality. To facilitate this

interaction an after-school lab was created "...within which researchers, teachers, and students

meet to experiment with the teaching of literacy. We think of this lab setting, following

Vygotsky, as a 'mediating' structure that facilitates strategic connections, multiple paths, between

classrooms and household" (p. 320). Without such mediating structures, investigations into

discourse practices in school and home have found that the variations between the two can lead

to problems as students adjust to the requirements of formal education.

In order to understand children in school settings, sociocultural approaches examine the

development of language and the ways that culturally different modes of discourse, both within

and between cultures, shape children's development and impact their educational experiences.

From birth, the social forms of child-caretaker interactions, the tools used by humans in

society to manipulate the environment, the culturally institutionalized patterns of social relations,

and language, operating together as a socio-semiotic system, are used by the child in cooperation

with adults to organize behavior, perception, memory, and complex mental processes. For

children, the development of language is a development of social existence into individuated

persons and into culture. (John-Steiner & Tatter, 1983, p. 83)

The linguist, James Gee (1989) argues that "discourses are intimately related to the

distribution of social power and hierarchical structure in society" (p. 20). The impact of

different, culturally-patterned modes of discourse is felt from the primary grades through higher

education. Michele Minnis (1994) examines the ways in which linguistically and culturally

diverse students are at a disadvantage in law school when faced with the norms of a legal

community indifferent to their culture, discourse, and values. She quotes a Chicana law student:

The game is alien to your upbringing. It is a manipulation of words in a foreign tongue --

words which mystify, manipulation which obscures your search for justice. You will feel as if

you don't belong....Group learning was almost impossible. Most of my classmates were

heartlessly competitive....If I were to call someone ambitious in English, it would be a

compliment. If I were to say the same in Spanish, it would be an insult. (pp. 382-83)

Studies of schooled discourses are of particular interest to contemporary students of education

and development. Some of these discourses are empowering as in the bilingual classroom

studied by Moll and Whitmore (1993); others contribute to the oppression of the silenced

(Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986; Cazden, 1988, 1993; Freire, 1970). Gee (1991)

drawing on research by Scribner and Cole (1981), Heath (1983) and others, identifies

sociocultural explanations of school failure: 1) discontinuities between the culture (values,

attitudes, and beliefs) of the home and school; 2) mismatches in communicative practices

between non-mainstream children and mainstream teachers that lead to miscommunication and

misjudgments; and 3) the internalization of negative stereotypes by minority groups who have

been marginalized and often see school as a site for opposition and resistance. Children whose

mode of discourse is different from that used in school instruction find themselves at a

disadvantage and often drop out, or are forced out, of school.

The ways in which children acquire language and construct knowledge in non-school

environments and the dynamic relationship with what they are taught in school is maximally

relevant to school learning. The conceptual and theoretical tool of spontaneous and scientific

concepts provides particularly interesting applications and expansions in literacy acquisition.

Literacy Acquisition

Since the time when Vygotsky and the young Russian psychologists of the nineteen-twenties

faced the social task of educating an overwhelmingly illiterate population following the

tremendous upheavals that transformed the Soviet Union during the Russian revolution of 1917,

literacy acquisition has been a central concern of sociocultural theory. For example, Scribner and

Cole (1981) built on Vygotsky's examination of the role of literacy in the transformation of

children's learning when they enter school and analyzed the relationship between literacy and

cognitive development. They found that literacy can be acquired independently of schooling

(particularly, schooling in the vast Western systems of education) and that literacy practices used

in different contexts will have specific effects on cognitive competencies. Their findings contrast

with more universal accounts of the relationship between literacy and formal modes of thought

(Olson, 1977).

Chang-Wells & Wells (1993) use Vygotsky's work on both learning and development and

spontaneous and scientific concepts to examine three dimensions of change in mental

functioning that can be ascribed to formal learning: intellectual-ization of mental functions,

bringing them under conscious and voluntary control; decontextualization, being able to detach a

concept from the context in which it was first encountered; and a movement toward integration

and systematization. They assert that all of these dimensions of cognitive change "are dependent

on literacy, when it is understood not simply as the encoding and decoding of written language

or the use of written texts for functional purposes but as engaging with texts of all kinds in ways

that exploit the symbolic representation of meaning as a means of empowering intrapersonal

mental activity" (p. 61). Using this theoretical foundation, they analyze the use of effective

instructional discourse in two classrooms designed to present literacy instruction in the students'

zones of proximal development.

To create an effective learning environment for literacy acquisition, Vygotsky (1978) wrote

that "teaching should be organized in such a way that reading and writing are necessary for

something....that writing should be meaningful....that writing be taught naturally....and that the

natural methods of teaching reading and writing involve appropriate operations on the child's

environment" (pp. 117-118). These considerations have influenced recent sociocultural

approaches to literacy instruction for children and adults in school, at workplaces, and in after-

school, home, and day-care settings (Clay & Cazden, 1990; John-Steiner, Panofsky, & Smith,

1994; McNamee, 1990; Scribner & Cole, 1981; Zebroski, 1994).

Using a genetic approach to literacy acquisition, sociocultural theory examines the origins of

both reading and writing. Panofsky (1994) studied the role of parent-child book reading in early

literacy socialization focusing on the functions and uses of language. She differentiated between

representational and interactional functions of language, building upon Vygotsky's distinctions.

Illustrating the roles of scaffolding and the zone of proximal development, she noted ...[A] shift

in the use of functions from a predominance of parent initiations to a predominance of child

initiations" (p. 239).

Vygotsky (1978) considered early literacy experiences important in the acquisition process.

He saw the origin of writing in a child's gesture which "is the initial visual sign that contains the

child's future writing as an acorn contains a future oak. Gestures, it has been correctly said, are

writing in air, and written signs frequently are simply gestures that have been fixed" (p. 107). In

the child's development there are two other domains in which gestures are linked to the origins

of written language -- the first is in scribbling and the dramatizations that often accompany it;

the second is in the area of symbolic play, where a child assigns meaning to an object through

gesture. The varied sources of writing in children's early years intrigued Vygotsky, who wrote of

drawing and play as preparation to literacy. In a related vein, McLane (1990) found in a study of

writing by children in an after-school day-care program that "children will, with adult

involvement and support, use writing as a resource for extending their interests in drawing, in

pretend and exploratory play, and as a means of exploring and conducting social relationships"

(p. 317).

As a result of being read to and using a writing tool to inscribe a piece of paper, or often a

wall, the child develops spontaneous concepts in the process of telling stories, acting out roles in

imaginative play, or creating representations. When children begin formal schooling, they start

with a foundation that is shaped by the nature of the interaction between caretaker and child, by

literacy uses valued by a particular culture, by print in the environment, and by the child's own

activity in literacy events. The challenge is to value and build on what the child brings to the

classroom. "By broadening both teachers' and students' views of students' backgrounds and

existing knowledge, the unique experiences that students bring to school make an important

contribution to the process of literacy acquisition" (Hiebert, 1991, p. 3). In a study of Latino

households in California, Gallimore and Goldenberg (1993) identified meaningful settings which

provide literacy activities, such as letter writing, for novice learners of reading and writing. They

focused on cultural experiences in everyday life and on the active participation of young learners

in literacy events. If such a focus is not adopted, teachers will not be able to understand their

students' attempts at literate ways of thinking (Langer, 1991) nor will they be able to provide the

learning opportunities to facilitate literacy acquisition for all students.

Such differences in language use in ethnically mixed classes often result in differential access

to literacy experiences....[T]eachers often unknowingly exclude or reduce the time minority

students participate in literacy activities because features of their discourse do not conform to

teachers' expectations or match their speaking style. (McCullom, 1991, pp. 111-112)

Understanding differences such as these are also important in teaching English to speakers of

other languages. Sociocultural theory recognizes the need for cultural, cognitive, and attitudinal

bridges between English as a Second Language (ESL) students and their new environment. The

use of dialogue journals with elementary and secondary students, as well as with adults, has been

found to be an effective technique to co-construct knowledge by allowing ESL students to draw

on their own experiences and develop their own voices in meaningful, interactive, written

communication (Mahn, 1992; Staton, Shuy, Peyton, & Reed, 1988).

In recent years there has been a critical re-evaluation of the traditional methods of literacy

instruction based on a single, universal time table and on cross-cultural universality. Vygotsky's

advice about teaching literacy as a natural process is realized in whole language (Goodman,

1975; Goodman & Goodman, 1979) and process approaches to reading and writing (Emig, 1971;

Calkins, 1986; Graves, 1983; Murray, 1985). These approaches view the interdependence of

social and individual processes as a natural part of each student's development (Scinto, 1986).

Reading and writing are not structured as solitary acts, but rather develop in collaborative efforts

in a community of learners (Zebroski, 1994). The core elements of these innovative approaches

to literacy instruction draw from and are supported by sociocultural theory and research.

The proponents and practitioners of such techniques and approaches, however, may not have

ever heard of Vygotsky nor of sociocultural approaches. Increasingly though, teachers exposed

to these ideas offer the sentiment that sociocultural theoretical perspectives provide the language

for what they are doing in their classrooms. This shows both the limitations of and the promise

for sociocultural approaches. Because this theory is complex and breaks radically from the

traditional American educational model in which teachers have been schooled, it is hard to

appropriate. The tendency is to abstract parts of the theory from the whole, which results in

distorted understandings and applications. As more educators become aware of the broad scope

of sociocultural theory, they will develop practical applications which will broaden and

strengthen this theoretical framework. Such a perspective offers exciting opportunities for

researchers and teachers as we face the challenges of educating youth for the twenty-first

century.

Conclusion

A goal for sociocultural theorists is the sustained development of methodological approaches

to educational and psychological research that focus on process and provide ways of

documenting change and transformation. In this article we have presented a sociocultural

approach to learning and development and implications for classroom learning and teaching. An

emerging theme in both theory and practice is the collaborative and transformative way in which

knowledge is co-constructed. We have focused on three central tenets from Vygotsky's complex

legacy -- social sources of individual development, semiotic mediation, and genetic analysis --

and have presented an argument for viewing learning as distributed, interactive, contextual, and

the result of the learners' participation in a community of practice.

Our aim has been to weave together some of Vygotsky's key ideas with pressing,

contemporary concerns, particularly the need to shape educational institutions to deliver

instruction which meets the needs of all students, especially the linguistically and culturally

diverse who historically have been marginalized by traditional models of pedagogy. We believe

a sociocultural point of view provides a deeper understanding of both the possibilities for and the

problematic nature of educational reform. Because educational institutions are a part of and

reflect the larger social system in which they are situated, a proposal for substantial reform

would have to consider economic, political, historical, social, and cultural factors. While such an

analysis was not the intent in this article, we believe a concept it has presented -- the socially

structured interdependence of teaching and research, theory construction, and educational

intervention -- provides a starting point for local reform initiatives, such as the ones in Brazil

described previously.

In the sociocultural framework notions of community and participation have been applied

primarily to novice learners. The applications of these notions to adults to study the dynamics of

collaboration and the interdependence of individual and social processes are areas for further

practical and theoretical development. Social constructivist frameworks, though not necessarily

contradictory to sociocultural ones, focus more on the possibilities for change within the

individual child, while sociocultural theoretical perspectives, as they develop and are applied to

educational systems, look at change at different levels of analysis and organization. Central to

the task of educators and psychologists is conceiving of our work as a system rather than as a set

of isolated activities. The sociocultural perspective can only thrive with the continued, and at

times discordant, articulation of the many voices of this thought community.

Footnotes

1. Vygotsky's works have been studied and interpreted by a variety of scholars, some of whom

prefer to use the term cultural-historical. In this article we refer broadly to the legacy of

Vygotsky's work and the contributions to and interpretations of his theory as the sociocultural

approach. Of particular significance in the varied expansions of this framework are the

contributions of activity theorists, including Leontiev (1978) and Engeström (1987, 1990). See

the journal Mind, Culture, and Activity for the breadth of disciplines and countries represented

by contributors to the sociocultural enterprise. Mind, Culture, and Activity is published four

times a year by the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, University of California, San

Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0092. Fax (619) 534-7746.

2. As first used by Wood, Bruner and Ross (1976), scaffolding is a metaphor for graduated

assistance provided to the novice, akin to the carpenter's scaffold.

3. Supported by National Science Foundation Grant #SBR-9423277, together with Michele

Minnis, Robert J. Weber, and Teresa Meehan, we are examining values, roles, responsibilities,

working methods, and conflict-resolution strategies to develop patterns of collaboration in long-

term interdisciplinary and inter-institutional projects organized to solve complex social and

technical problems. The two main collaborative groups we are analyzing consist of adults

involved in a water consortium and adults and adolescents participating in a program whose

focus is on middle school students whose home, school, and community environments make

them susceptible to drug and alcohol abuse.

References

Bakhurst, D. (1995). On the social constitution of mind: Bruner, Ilyenkov, and the defence of

cultural psychology. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 2, 158-171.

Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women's ways of

knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.

Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in

creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2),

141-178.

Brown, A. L., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K., Gordon, A., & Campione, J. C. (1993).

Distributed expertise in the classroom. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions:

Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 188-228). New York: Cambridge University

Press.

Bruner, J. (1962). Introduction. In Vygotsky, Thought and language (pp. v-x). Cambridge,

MA: MIT Press.

Calkins, L. M. (1986). The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Cazden, C. (1993). Vygotsky, Hymes, and Bakhtin: From word to utterance and voice. In E.

A. Forman, N. Minick, & C. A. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in

children's development (pp. 197-212). New York: Oxford University Press.

Chang-Wells, G. L. M., & Wells, G. (1993). Dynamics of discourse: Literacy and the

construction of knowledge. In E. A. Forman, N. Minick, & C. A. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for

learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children's development (pp. 58-90). New York: Oxford

University Press.

Clay, M. M., & Cazden, C. B. (1990). A Vygotskian interpretation of Reading Recovery. In L.

C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications of sociohistorical psychology

(pp. 206-222). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cobb, P., Wood, T., & Yackel, E. (1993). Discourse, mathematical thinking, and classroom

practice. In E. A. Forman, N. Minick, & C. A. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural

dynamics in children's development (pp. 91-119). New York: Oxford University Press.

Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (1996). Constructivist, emergent, and sociocultural perspectives in the

context of developmental research. Educational Psychologist. ???

Cole, M. (1990). Cognitive development and formal schooling: The evidence from cross-

cultural research. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications of

sociohistorical psychology (pp. 89-110). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cole, M. (1995). Cultural-historical psychology: A meso-genetic approach. In L. M. W.

Martin, K. Nelson, & E. Tobach (Eds.), Sociocultural psychology: Theory and practice of doing

and knowing (pp. 168-204). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cole, M. (1996). April 28 contribution to LISTSERV xmca@weber.ucsd

Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In

G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1-

46). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cole, M., & Scribner, S. (1974). Culture and thought: A psychological introduction. New

York: Wiley.

Cole, M., & Scribner, S. (1978). Introduction. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E.

Souberman (Eds.). Vygotsky, L. S., Mind in society: The development of higher psychological

processes (pp. 1-16). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Damon, W., & Phelps, E. (1989). Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer

education. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 9-19.

Derry, S. (1996). Cognitive schema theory in the constructivist debate. Educational

Psychologist, 31(4).

Diaz, R. M. (1992). Methodological concerns in the study of private speech. In R. M. Diaz &

L. E. Berk (Eds.), Private speech: rom social interaction to self-regulation (pp. 55-81).

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Emig, J. (1971). The composing processes of twelfth graders. Urbana, Illinois: National

Council of Teachers of English.

Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding. An activity-theoretical approach to

developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.

Engeström, Y. (1990). Learning, working and imagining: Twelve studies in activity theory.

Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.

Engeström, Y. (1994). Teachers as collaborative thinkers: Activity-theoretical study of an

innovative teacher team. In I. Carlgren, G. Handal, & S. Vaage (Eds.), Teachers' minds and

actions: Research on teachers' thinking and practice (pp. 43-61). Bristol, PA: The Falmer Press.

Falmagne, R. J. (1995). The abstract and the concrete. In L. M. W. Martin, K. Nelson, & E.

Tobach (Eds.), Sociocultural psychology: Theory and practice of doing and knowing (pp. 205-

228). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Forman, E. A., & McPhail, J. (1993). Vygotskian perspective on children's collaborative

problem-solving activities. In E. A. Forman, N. Minick, & C. A. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for

learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children's development (pp. 213-229). New York: Oxford

University Press

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.

Frauenglass, M. H., & Diaz, R. M. (1985). Self-regulatory functions of children's private

speech: A critical analysis of recent challenges to Vygotsky's theory. Developmental

Psychology, 21, 357-364.

Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (1993). Activity settings of early literacy: Home and school

factors in children's emergent literacy. In E. A. Forman, N. Minick, & C. A. Stone (Eds.),

Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children's development (pp. 315-335). New

York: Oxford University Press.

Gallimore, R., & Tharp, R. (1990). Teaching mind in society: Teaching, schooling, and

literate discourse. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications of

sociohistorical psychology (pp. 175-205). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gee, J. (1989). What is literacy? Journal of Education, 171, 18-25.

Gee, J. (1991). Socio-cultural approaches to literacy (literacies). Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics, 12, 31-48.

Gindis, B. (1995). The social/cultural implication of disability: Vygotsky's paradigm for

special education. Educational Psychologist, 30(2), 77-82.

Goodman, K. (1975). Acquiring literacy is natural: Who skilled Cock Robin? In F. Gollasch

(Ed.), Language & literacy: The selected writings of Kenneth S. Goodman. v. 2. (pp. 243-249).

London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Goodman, K., & Goodman, Y. (1979). Learning to read is natural. In L. Resnick & P. Weaver

(Eds.). Theory and practice of early reading. Vol. I (pp. 137-154). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Graves, D. H. (1983). Writing: Teachers & children at work. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and

classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hiebert, E. H. (1991). Introduction. In E. H. Hiebert (Ed.), Literacy for a diverse society:

Perspectives, practices, and policies (pp. 1-6). New York: Teachers College Press.

John-Steiner, V. (1985). Notebooks of the mind: Explorations in thinking. New York: Harper

& Row.

John-Steiner, V. (1991). Cognitive pluralism: A Whorfian analysis. In B. Spolsky & R.

Cooper (Eds.), Festschrift in honor of Joshua Fishman's 65th birthday (pp. 61-74). The Hague:

Mouton.

John-Steiner, V. (1995). Cognitive pluralism: A sociocultural approach. Mind, Culture, and

Activity, 2, 2-10.

John-Steiner, V. (1996, February). Creativity and collaboration in knowledge construction.

Paper presented at National Council of Teachers of English Assembly on Research. Vygotsky

Centennial: Vygotskian Perspectives on Literacy and Research. Chicago, IL.

John-Steiner, V., & Osterreich, H. (1975). Learning styles among Pueblo children. NIE

Research Grant, Final Report, Albuquerque, University of New Mexico, Department of

Educational Foundations.

John-Steiner, V., & Panofsky, C. P. (1992). Narrative competence: Cross-cultural

comparisons. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 2, 219-233.

John-Steiner, V., Panofsky, C. P., & Smith, L. W. (1994). Sociocultural approaches to

language and literacy: An interactionist perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.

John-Steiner, V., & Souberman, E. (1978). Afterword. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S.

Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Vygotsky, L. S., Mind in society: The development of higher

psychological processes (pp. 120-133). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

John-Steiner, V., & Tatter, P. (1983). An interactionist model of language development. In B.

Bain (Ed.), The sociogenesis of language and human conduct (pp. 79-97). New York: Plenum

Press.

Jordan, C., Tharp, R. G., & Vogt, L. (1985). Compatibility of classroom and culture: General

principles with Navajo and Hawaiian incidents. Working paper. Honolulu, Kamehameha

Schools/Bishop Estate: Center for Development of Early Education.

Kozulin, A. (1990). Vygotsky's psychology: A biography of ideas. Brighton, UK: Harvester

Wheatsheaf.

Langer, J. A. (1991). Literacy and schooling: A sociocognitive perspective. In E. H. Hiebert

(Ed.), Literacy for a diverse society: Perspectives, practices, and policies (pp. 7-27). New York:

Teachers College Press.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Leinhardt, G. (1996, April). Focusing on knowledge systems for teaching. Paper presented at

the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.

Lemke, J. L. (1995). Textual politics, discourse and social dynamics. London: Taylor &

Francis.

Leontiev, A. N. (1977). The dialectical method in the psychology of memory. Soviet

Psychology, 1, 53-69.

Leontiev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

Leontiev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of mind. Moscow: Progress Publishers.

Luria, A. (1973). The working brain: An introduction to neuropsychology. New York: Basic

Books.

Luria, A. (1979). The making of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Mahn, H. (1992). ESL students and the reading and writing processes: An attitudinal profile.

Unpublished master's thesis, California State University, Los Angeles, CA.

McCullom, P. (1991). Cross-cultural perspectives on classroom discourse and literacy. In E.

H. Hiebert (Ed.), Literacy for a diverse society: Perspectives, practices, and policies (pp. 108-

121). New York: Teachers College Press.

McLane, J. B. (1990). Writing as a social process. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and

education: Instructional implications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 304-318). New York:

Cambridge University Press.

McNamee, G. D. (1990). Learning to read and write in an inner-city setting: A longitudinal

study of community change. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional

implications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 287-302). New York: Cambridge University

Press.

Minnis, M. (1994). Toward a definition of law school readiness. In V. John-Steiner, C. P.

Panofsky, & L. W. Smith (Eds.), Sociocultural approaches to language and literacy: An

interactionist perspective (pp. 347-390). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Moll, L. C. (1992). Literacy research in community and classrooms: A sociocultural approach.

In R. Beach, J. L. Green, M. L. Kamil, & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Multidisciplinary perspectives on

literacy research (pp. 211-244). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Moll, L. C., & Greenberg, J. B. (1990). Creating zones of possibilities: Combining social

contexts for instruction. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications

of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 319-348). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Moll, L. C., & Whitmore, K. F. (1993). Vygotsky in classroom practice: Moving from

individual transmission to social transaction. In E. A. Forman, N. Minick, & C. A. Stone (Eds.),

Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children's development (pp. 19-42). New York:

Oxford University Press.

Murray D. M. (1985). A writer teaches writing (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin

Company.

Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone: Working for cognitive

change in schools. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nicolopoulou, A., & Cole, M. (1993). Generation and transmission of shared knowledge in

the culture of collaborative learning: The Fifth Dimension, its play-world, and its institutional

contexts. In E. A. Forman, N. Minick, & C. A. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural

dynamics in children's development (pp. 283-314). New York: Oxford University Press.

Olson, D. (1977). From utterance to text: The bias of language in speech and writing. Harvard

Education Review, 47, 257-281.

Packer, M. (1993). Away from internalization. In E. A. Forman, N. Minick, & C. A. Stone

(Eds.), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children's development (pp. 254-265).

New York: Oxford University Press.

Palincsar, A. M., Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1993). First-grade dialogues for

knowledge acquisition and use. In E. A. Forman, N. Minick, & C. A. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for

learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children's development (pp. 43-57). New York: Oxford

University Press.

Panofsky, C. P. (1994). Developing the representational functions of language: The role of

parent-child book-reading activity. In V. John-Steiner, C. P. Panofsky, & L. W. Smith (Eds.),

Sociocultural approaches to language and literacy: An interactionist perspective (pp. 223-242).

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Penuel, W. R., & Wertsch, J. V. (1995). Vygotsky and identity formation: A sociocultural

approach. Educational Psychologist, 30(2 ), 83-92.

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rogoff, B. (1991). Guidance and participation in spatial planning. In L. B. Resnick, J. M.

Levine, & S. B. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 349-364).

Washington, D. C.: American Psychological Association.

Rogoff, B. (1994). Developing understanding of the idea of communities of learners. Mind,

Culture, and Activity, 1, 209-229.

Rogoff, B., Radziszewska, B., & Masiello, T. (1995). Analysis of developmental processes in

sociocultural activity. In L. M. W. Martin, K. Nelson, & E. Tobach (Eds.), Sociocultural

psychology: Theory and practice of doing and knowing (pp. 125-149). New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Scinto, L. F. M. (1986). Written language and psychological development. Orlando, FL:

Academic Press.

Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1981). The psychology of literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Slavin, R. E. (1983). When does cooperative learning increase student achievement?

Psychological Bulletin, 94,429-445.

Slavin, R. E. (1987). Developmental and motivational perspectives on cooperative learning: A

reconciliation. Child Development, 58, 1167-67.

Souza Lima, E. (1995). Culture revisited: Vygotsky's ideas in Brazil. Anthropology &

Education Quarterly, 26, (4), 443-458.

Staton, J., Shuy, R., Peyton, J. K., & Reed, L. (1988). Dialogue journal communication:

Classroom, linguistic, social, and cognitive views. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching and learning in social

context. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Tobach, E. (1995). The uniqueness of human labor. In L. M. W. Martin, K. Nelson, & E.

Tobach (Eds.), Sociocultural psychology: Theory and practice of doing and knowing (pp. 43-

66). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Tudge, J., & Rogoff, B. (1989). Peer influences on cognitive development: Piagetian and

Vygotskian perspectives. In M. Bornstein & J. Bruner (Eds.), Interaction in human development

(pp. 17-40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Valsiner, J. (1987). Culture and the development of children's action: A cultural-historical

theory of development. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

van der Veer, R., & Valsiner, J. (1991). Understanding Vygotsky: A quest for synthesis.

Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.

M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The instrumental method in psychology. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The

concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp.134-144). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. A. Kozulin (Ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press.

Weber, R. J. (1992). Forks, phonographs, and hot air balloons. New York: Oxford University

Press.

Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

"We can formulate the genetic law of cultural development in the following way: any

function in the child's cultural development appears on stage twice, on two planes. First it

appears on the social plane, then on the psychological, first among people as an interpsyhical

category and then within the child as an intrapsychical category".

 

The Man and his Ideas

His Life: by Gita Vygodskaya

This one is a gem. Gita Vygodskaya reflects on growing up with her father and offers a personal

look into the man who is referred to as the Mozart of Psychology.

Vygotsky Before Vygotsky

Nikolai Veresov offers a historical and methodological analysis of Vygotsky's ideas. The work

focuses on Vygotsky's writings from 1917-1927.  This is the introduction to his book,

Undiscovered Vygotsky, which can be purchased from the Nateweb bookstore.

Vygotsky's Sociohistorical Psychology

Carl Ratner discusses the significance of Vygotsky's Sociohistorical Psychology. He discusses

Vygotsky's early work and politics, sociohistorical and sociogenesis character of psychological

processes, as well as contrasts to other approaches. Ratner does a good job at incorporating

Vygotsky's ideas into contemporary research including his own.

Practice -   Vygotsky's tool-and-result methodology and psychology

Chapter 3 from Fred Newman and Lois Holzman's book, Lev Vygotsky: Revolutionary

Scientist. 

Prologue to Collected Works Volume 5.

Carl Ratner introduces the reader to the most important concepts Vygotsky discusses in

Collected Works Volume 5. These include higher / lower psychological processes, integration of

psychological processes, qualitative change, and form / content. Ratner does a very good job at

introducing and summerizing Vygotsky's ideas from Child Pychology

Semiotics of Play

Rafal Dziurla looks at the importance of some of Vygotsky's ideas about play. The focus of the

paper is on the role Vygotsky gave to play in the development of generalisation (meaning). 

Why Vygotsky

Steven Kerr asks the interesting question, Why Vygotsky?, in reference to educational reform in

both Russia and the West.

Vygotsky Compared to Others

Critical Theory and Vygotsky

Willem Wardekker looks at the similarities and differences between Critical Theory and

Vygotskian Theory. He primarily focuses on the topic of personality formation and argues the

benefit of Vygotskian theory lies in its denial of an "authentic" human subject and its more

positive conception of plurality on both a soceital and personality level. Wardekker's conclusion

is a Vygotskian approach to personality must be more "radical" than Radical Pedagogy.

Piaget and Vygotsky

James Wertsch and Mike Cole give an good comparison of Vygotsky and Piaget's theories of

child development. They argue that the division of social and individual does not hold up

because both Vygotsky and Piaget valued the individual and social forces in development. Both

saw the social-individual relationally, but by Vygotsky focusing on mediation he gave the social

a very specific role in development.

Vygotsky and Bakhtin

J. Allan Cheyne and Donato Tarulli look at the similarities and differences between Vygotsky

and Bakhtin's use of the "other" or third voice. The focus primarily on their ideas in relation to

rethinking the zone of proximal development. They expand the ZPD to include Magistral,

Socratic, and Menippean dialogues. They argue the expanded ZPD provides a medium for

cultural-historical as well as developmental change.

D.Sociocultural Theory

Many developmental scientists believe that children do not proceed through universal stages or processes of development. To sociocultural theorists, children’s growth is deeply guided by the values, goals, and expectations of their culture. In this perspective, children acquire skills valued by their culture—such as reading, managing crops, or using an abacus—through the guidance and support of older people. Thus, developmental abilities may differ for children in different societies, and development cannot be separated from its cultural context.

One of the pioneers of sociocultural theory was Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky, whose writings in the 1920s and 1930s emphasized how children’s interaction with adults contributes to the development of skills. According to Vygotsky, sensitive adults are aware of a child’s readiness for new challenges, and they structure appropriate activities to help the child develop new skills. Adults act as mentors and teachers, leading the child into the zone of proximal development—Vygotsky’s term for the range of skills that the child cannot perform unaided but can master with adult assistance. A parent may encourage simple number concepts, for example, by counting beads with the child or measuring cooking ingredients together, filling in the numbers that the child cannot remember. As children participate in such experiences daily with parents, teachers, and others, they gradually learn the culture’s practices, skills, and values.

Sociocultural theory highlights how children incorporate culture into their reasoning, social interaction, and self-understanding. It also explains why children growing up in different societies are likely to have significantly different skills. Theorists like Vygotsky are sometimes criticized, however, for neglecting the influence of biological maturation, which guides childhood growth independently of culture.

Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.